"So I don't understand what happened: if the FIA admits to have established possession of Ferrari material by McLaren, then why is there no retribution? This verdict reminds me of Pontius Pilate."
The above words followed the original McLaren/Ferrari ‘Spygate’ hearing, the one at which the World Motor Sport Council decided that McLaren were guilty of possession of Ferrari IP, but decreed there would be no penalty, as no proof could be found that it had been utilised.
Those words were spoken by Flavio Briatore, Managing Director of the Renault F1 team, in response to that verdict.
Yesterday, Wednesday 5th December, McLaren Mercedes issued a statement, at the request of the FIA, clarifying discrepancies between earlier press reports and the accepted facts, with regard to today’s hearing at which Renault were charged with possession of Mclaren documents. The statement included the following information:
“13 Renault F1 employees provided 18 witness statements and 9 of them have so far admitted they viewed and discussed the confidential technical information belonging to McLaren.”
“Mr Mackereth copied information onto 11 computer disks. The information on these 11 computer disks was uploaded by Renault IT staff in September 2006 onto Renault's T: drive and then transferred by Mr Mackereth to his personal home directory stored on Renault's network server. A back up copy of the material on Mr Mackereth's personal directory was made onto an unknown number of Renault's back up servers/tapes.”
“Only Mr Mackereth and Mr Hardie admit viewing McLaren Confidential Information on Mr Mackereth's computer. The other seven employees who have admitted seeing McLaren Confidential Information admit seeing it in the form of computer print outs or hard copy documents.”
“The information taken by Mr Mackereth on floppy disks, in hard copy form and by email amounts to 762 pages when printed out. The 11 computer disks included 18 individual technical drawings. Mr Mackereth also admits that he took hard copy drawings of McLarens dampers.”
“McLaren drawings plus the information in a confidential MP4 - 22A Specification document taken by Mr Mackereth constitute a technical definition of the fundamental layout of the 2007 McLaren car and the technical details of its innovative and performance enhancing systems.”
All of the above, we must remember, is not disputed – Renault has admitted to each.
At the first McLaren hearing, the team were found –as we have said – guilty of possession of Ferrari IP, but no penalty was deemed necessary as the Council could find no evidence that anyone other than Mike Coughlan had seen the documents concerned (although, he admitted, he had attempted to show them to two or three further personnel, only to be instructed to destroy them.)
You will no doubt be aware by now that Renault have been found guilty of breach of Article 151c, with regard to possession of McLaren information, but have not been punished for reasons yet to be outlined ( I write this an hour after the verdict has been revealed.)
This implies that the two cases must be comparable.
Are they? Does one rogue employee with a dossier of unknown information in his possession, and his only (remember we are talking of the initial hearing here, not the subsequent ‘re-trial’ really compare like-for-like with a former employee loading his ex-employers confidential information onto the company system, and then sharing it and further drawings, including some current?
Does the lack of any proof that anyone other than Coughlan, at McLaren, was aware of the extent of the documentation in his possession really stand equal alongside McLaren drawings being admittedly disseminated amongst Renault engineers?
In the McLaren case, the rogue employee, the single man, led to the lack of punishment; yet, in today’s case, even though the FIA were aware of McLaren information being passed around Renault, aware that their were numbers of personnel involved, aware that this was stolen, confidential information, and in possession of definite, concrete, certain proof of all, they decreed the same verdict should be passed!
Whether one sides with the ‘FIA bias’ conspiracy theorists, or those who believe that Bernie and his commercial gain have a hand in this, or whether the FIA are just plain incompetent, and inconsistent, one thing is surely clear: something, somewhere, stinks.
I am not writing this in outrage that Renault should have got what McLaren did (although I believe they should have) or out of personal preference towards Ron Dennis, Flavio Briatore, or their respective teams, but in complete and utter bewilderment that such a verdict can passed, when compared with the earlier precedent.
The FIA are looking increasingly shambolic of late, and this writer is not the sole perpetrator of that belief. The decision in the ‘cool fuel’ case, the inexplicably draconian fine for McLaren despite a blatant lack of any evidence other than that circumstantial, and now this, all add up to an organisation that is out of it’s depth, and is unafraid to be seen as such. Arrogance of this level has no place in a sport as internationally prevalent as Formula One.
The time has come for, at least, a change of leadership, if not a study as to how decisions such as this can be made in a proper ‘court’, as opposed to one that is manned by international blazers whose best interests are served in siding with the President. The time has come to move such matters into the real world, into the 21st century.
Tomorrow sees the decision on whether the McLaren MP4-23 is deemed to have been designed using Ferrari Intellectual Property. Given that President Mosley has already declared the inspectors would be looking for ‘ideas’, we should be able to assume that the car will be passed fit for service. Given, however, that the FIA has shown a distinct lack of consistency in such matters of late, we should perhaps expect the worst.
An interesting angle on all of this will be the reaction of McLaren-Mercedes; still liable to a $100,000,000 fine, will they take this lying down, or, as is more likely, will they appeal?
Along with the full reasoning behind today’s decision, more will no doubt come to light tomorrow.
Written by Steve Turnbull on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:32:45
[ Print View ][ E-Mail Article ]
